Samba 3 can even act as an active directory domain controller. Samba 3 supports kerberos (which is where earlier versions failed - an registry patch was required to turn off encrypted password access to third-party SMB servers). I use samba 3 here at work, and the linux box sits on our domain, authenticating users via the AD box, no problems.
The LEO, Lyons' Electronic Office, was built earlier in 1951...
Here is a site with some history. Apparently, they started on it back in '47. Lyons was originally a tea shop in London, before they branched out into computing.
And it's just that easy on a Windows box. Don't get above yourself:)
In my experience, I've found most mac users only scrape the surface of the potential their mac holds. When I'm trying to sort out some OSX networking issues, I can never find information on mac sites. I have to go to BSD sites to find the goodies. It seems mac users just use their macs to shout at non-mac users and try to rub their faces in their macness, instead of actually USING their computers.
Don't think macs are anything they're not. They're not easier to use, not faster to set up. They just look pretty and cost an arm and a leg.
Saudi Arabia doesn't give $1bn a year to terrorist states like the US does... I think you'll find the US is the largest supporter of terrorism out there.
In a much, much larger form factor, and for a greatly increased price. You've missed why bluetooth is so good at what it does - it costs cents to include on a device, and takes up hardly any room. WIFI, WUSB, WFirewire and every other sort of wireless technology don't offer those features, which is why bluetooth is a great success, even if most of the US doesn't think so.
Bluetooth isn't for the same use as wifi, so comparing them is pointless. You wont find a wifi implementation as small as bluetooth, nor using as little power. It's not meant to be blazingly fast, but accessible. People don't want non-network wireless data connectivity on their mobile phones if they have to be twice as large. Bluetooth is for voice, data and small documents, not for streaming media or backing up servers. Most people, like yourself, seem to completely miss the whole point. And, funnily enough, most are from the US where mobile phone handsets are lacking in general, though. Probably has something to do with it.
What's failing about bluetooth? It's the only technology out there that does what it does. It's small, low-power, and incredibly cheap to implement. It has been designed from the get-go as a mobile technology, to create the PAN (personal area network). Comparing it to wireless USB and wireless firewire (which are larger, more expensive and use more power) is ridiculous. It's like asking why we need desktop PCs when there are much more powerful supercomputers out there. Looking at sheer specs means you've missed half the whole point of it.
Unlike WUSB and wireless firewire, bluetooth is here, now. It's in my phone. It's in my two computers. Now, I can sync my address book up with my phone still in my pocket. I can sit at my desk at work, and use my headphones and a microphone to make calls over my mobile, with it still in my pocket. I can send/get media files from it, and update the latest games. Saying bluetooth has failed shows you don't really know much about how widespread and used it is.
How on earth can you attack speed cameras? Got a problem with getting fined? Don't speed. It's that simple. Sheesh. It hardly takes a genius to figure that one out. Just like if you don't like getting locked up in prison, don't kill anyone. Getting the picture?
You knock the public transport system, yet it works very well (even considering the 1m+ people it carries around to work and back).
Motorists seem to want to pollute and waste space on the crowded roads without being charged for the privelege (which is what it is, not a right).
In cities, there is no reason to drive a car unless you carry around large boxes every single journey you make.
No-one has an intrinsic right to drive a car. They pollute, take up a lot of space, do damage to public property and in the vast majority of uses (in big cities at least), are completely un-needed.
Public transport works, and works well. I don't need a car where I live (london), even though I work miles away from where I live. I just jump on a bus, then change for a train. That takes me clear across London in well under an hour.
You see people driving around on their own in cars, taking up as much room as half a bus (yet half of the bus carries over 30 people, as opposed to just one).
I see motorists as a large source of pollution and wasted space. I think it's absolutely fine to tax motorists. In london especially, there really is no need for a car. Got something to take home? Stick your hand out in the road and climb into the big, shiny black thing that's pulled up within a minute. The taxi driver will know his way to your house better than you will, and you don't have to drive all the way there yourself.
If someone can please explain to me why people feel the need to drive a large, wasteful, polluting machine around already congested roads and not get charged a penny for it, I'm all ears.
There's no "privacy" when you're in public. That's what public means. If you don't want people looking at you or your car, don't go out in public.
I'm not worried at all, as this offers the police absolutely nothing that they don't have already. People getting their knickers in a twist about this clearly don't understand what's currently in place, and what it means to be "in public". sheesh!:-P
Do you know the difference between "public" and "private"? If you're in public, you have no right to privacy. After all, what's to stop someone remembering every face they saw in the street?
For that scenario to never happen, we'd have to turn the clocks back 10 years and halt all technological progress. We've had cameras with built-in OCR for years. They do exactly the same thing as this RFID nonsense, but visually. Why people are suddenly up in arms now is beyond me.
So "bloat" is a good thing now? I don't get what you're saying:)
Windows has smooth-moving windows, fast application response times, quickly-updating GUI and a bunch of other stuff. It's 500mb in total. A comparable linux distro is twice the size, takes longer to load windows, has a less-stable GUI and feels sluggish to use. I don't think it takes Stephen Hawking to tell us which is better to use:-P
Where are all these applications loaded into memory? Care to cite some sources? I've not seen anything popping up in memory when I have MS office (or anything else) installed and I turn my machine on...
They need more memory, and better CPUs than windows. That's what the whole article was about. It's not about being on par, but slipping behind. If a linux distro has to be reduced to a crawl to offer the same functionality as a windows box - something's horribly, horribly wrong, and the desktop war is far from over. How on earth linux is going to rule the desktop when it's out-performed by 2000 and XP, yet can't offer the same functionality with regards to multimedia, gaming and productivity, arguably three of the most important features of a desktop OS.
It's perfectly possible in windows. Games, especially, can run in the background fine. I do wish people would stop thinking up what they imagine Windows to be like, then spouting it as some sort of fact. Windows users read that, realise it's completely made up, and get a bad impression of linux types. It only serves to help windows, not linux.
That's funny. So, XFree86 is faster, yet looks slower. Windows is slower, yet looks faster. Now, call me weird, but I'd prefer something that seems faster to something that is faster, as if it's faster to me, that's all that matters.
This is the same ol' get-out-of-zealotry-free card that gets slung around on slashdot. is slower than the big bad alternative? Pah! is faster, but looks slower! So there!
Slashdot Mirror
Samba 3 can even act as an active directory domain controller. Samba 3 supports kerberos (which is where earlier versions failed - an registry patch was required to turn off encrypted password access to third-party SMB servers). I use samba 3 here at work, and the linux box sits on our domain, authenticating users via the AD box, no problems.
Here is a site with some history. Apparently, they started on it back in '47. Lyons was originally a tea shop in London, before they branched out into computing.
U320 SCSI controllers aren't available on sub-$100 motherboards, for one thing...
In my experience, I've found most mac users only scrape the surface of the potential their mac holds. When I'm trying to sort out some OSX networking issues, I can never find information on mac sites. I have to go to BSD sites to find the goodies. It seems mac users just use their macs to shout at non-mac users and try to rub their faces in their macness, instead of actually USING their computers.
Don't think macs are anything they're not. They're not easier to use, not faster to set up. They just look pretty and cost an arm and a leg.
Great. Like Bush puts up with anti-bush protests. It might also put an end to legal demonstration. yay.
Informative? You're posting a link to a .mil site. They're hardly known for their accuracy or veritas. sheesh.
If I were a brit, I'd be more worried about some redneck in an abrams than an RPG... "Looky here! These A-Rabs look kinda funny! Let 'em have it!"
Saudi Arabia doesn't give $1bn a year to terrorist states like the US does... I think you'll find the US is the largest supporter of terrorism out there.
In a much, much larger form factor, and for a greatly increased price. You've missed why bluetooth is so good at what it does - it costs cents to include on a device, and takes up hardly any room. WIFI, WUSB, WFirewire and every other sort of wireless technology don't offer those features, which is why bluetooth is a great success, even if most of the US doesn't think so.
Bluetooth isn't for the same use as wifi, so comparing them is pointless. You wont find a wifi implementation as small as bluetooth, nor using as little power. It's not meant to be blazingly fast, but accessible. People don't want non-network wireless data connectivity on their mobile phones if they have to be twice as large. Bluetooth is for voice, data and small documents, not for streaming media or backing up servers. Most people, like yourself, seem to completely miss the whole point. And, funnily enough, most are from the US where mobile phone handsets are lacking in general, though. Probably has something to do with it.
What's failing about bluetooth? It's the only technology out there that does what it does. It's small, low-power, and incredibly cheap to implement. It has been designed from the get-go as a mobile technology, to create the PAN (personal area network). Comparing it to wireless USB and wireless firewire (which are larger, more expensive and use more power) is ridiculous. It's like asking why we need desktop PCs when there are much more powerful supercomputers out there. Looking at sheer specs means you've missed half the whole point of it.
Unlike WUSB and wireless firewire, bluetooth is here, now. It's in my phone. It's in my two computers. Now, I can sync my address book up with my phone still in my pocket. I can sit at my desk at work, and use my headphones and a microphone to make calls over my mobile, with it still in my pocket. I can send/get media files from it, and update the latest games. Saying bluetooth has failed shows you don't really know much about how widespread and used it is.
Please don't even begin to compare the two.
You knock the public transport system, yet it works very well (even considering the 1m+ people it carries around to work and back).
Motorists seem to want to pollute and waste space on the crowded roads without being charged for the privelege (which is what it is, not a right).
In cities, there is no reason to drive a car unless you carry around large boxes every single journey you make.
Public transport works, and works well. I don't need a car where I live (london), even though I work miles away from where I live. I just jump on a bus, then change for a train. That takes me clear across London in well under an hour.
You see people driving around on their own in cars, taking up as much room as half a bus (yet half of the bus carries over 30 people, as opposed to just one).
I see motorists as a large source of pollution and wasted space. I think it's absolutely fine to tax motorists. In london especially, there really is no need for a car. Got something to take home? Stick your hand out in the road and climb into the big, shiny black thing that's pulled up within a minute. The taxi driver will know his way to your house better than you will, and you don't have to drive all the way there yourself.
If someone can please explain to me why people feel the need to drive a large, wasteful, polluting machine around already congested roads and not get charged a penny for it, I'm all ears.
I'm not worried at all, as this offers the police absolutely nothing that they don't have already. People getting their knickers in a twist about this clearly don't understand what's currently in place, and what it means to be "in public". sheesh! :-P
For that scenario to never happen, we'd have to turn the clocks back 10 years and halt all technological progress. We've had cameras with built-in OCR for years. They do exactly the same thing as this RFID nonsense, but visually. Why people are suddenly up in arms now is beyond me.
They can already. Anyway, if you're in public, what right do you have to not have your whereabouts known? public - the clue's in the name.
Windows has smooth-moving windows, fast application response times, quickly-updating GUI and a bunch of other stuff. It's 500mb in total. A comparable linux distro is twice the size, takes longer to load windows, has a less-stable GUI and feels sluggish to use. I don't think it takes Stephen Hawking to tell us which is better to use :-P
XP runs fine on machines with 128mb of ram, so the niche is closing :-P
Agreed. People rarely swap performance for ideological satisfaction when they just want to surf the internet.
Only for things that use kdelibs... For everything else it just wastes memory.
Where are all these applications loaded into memory? Care to cite some sources? I've not seen anything popping up in memory when I have MS office (or anything else) installed and I turn my machine on...
They need more memory, and better CPUs than windows. That's what the whole article was about. It's not about being on par, but slipping behind. If a linux distro has to be reduced to a crawl to offer the same functionality as a windows box - something's horribly, horribly wrong, and the desktop war is far from over. How on earth linux is going to rule the desktop when it's out-performed by 2000 and XP, yet can't offer the same functionality with regards to multimedia, gaming and productivity, arguably three of the most important features of a desktop OS.
It's perfectly possible in windows. Games, especially, can run in the background fine. I do wish people would stop thinking up what they imagine Windows to be like, then spouting it as some sort of fact. Windows users read that, realise it's completely made up, and get a bad impression of linux types. It only serves to help windows, not linux.
This is the same ol' get-out-of-zealotry-free card that gets slung around on slashdot. is slower than the big bad alternative? Pah! is faster, but looks slower! So there!
Please.